Is a "socialist libertarian" a thing?

[PyramidHead]

It depends on what kind of freedom you value most. The freedom to choose one's own health care system in every detail, vs. the freedom to plan for one's future without needing to account for crippling medical bills or loss of insurance. It may be that it is only possible to attain the broader, more valuable freedoms by sacrificing some basic freedoms. In practice it might not work, but this thread is just about the applicability of a label, which describes what someone thinks might work.

You are using the word freedom in ways libertarians don't.

Libertarians place an emphasis on individuals being free to make the decisions that affect themselves.

If I am up to my eyeballs in medical bills or in danger of losing my insurance, I have substantially less freedom to make decisions that affect myself than I would if medical treatment and insurance were free. My options are severely constrained as a direct result of my situation. Not sure what point you were trying to make, but we're emphasizing the same thing.

"I want people to be free to buy whatever healthcare they want" not equal "I want people to be free from paying for healthcare so I will compel others to pay for it".

Jolly Penguin seems to understand the difference between voluntary interaction and compulsion and can advocate compulsion without the need to pretend he isn't by dressing it up as "freedom".

Good for Jolly_Penguin.

 

[arkirk]

Socialist libertarian is an oxymoron.

Libertarianism is about keeping government out of one's life as much as is feasible.

Socialism requires major intrusion by government into one's life.


The "socialist libertarian" position seems to be basically about leaving me alone but taking from others to provide me with as much as possible of the necessities of life.

Yep. the position would be libertarian with a hypocritical stance on health care.

Try just hypocritical!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Socialist libertarian is an oxymoron.

Libertarianism is about keeping government out of one's life as much as is feasible.

Socialism requires major intrusion by government into one's life.


The "socialist libertarian" position seems to be basically about leaving me alone but taking from others to provide me with as much as possible of the necessities of life.

Yep. the position would be libertarian with a hypocritical stance on health care.

Ok, so what is the more appropriate label for me politically? Democratic Socialist as RavenSky suggested?

I'm also for gun restriction laws and though I am for freedom to go nude or wear whatever you want, I could be convinced towards some moderate and reasonable restrictions on nudity for sanitary reasons and moderate and reasonable restrictions on face coverings for security reasons. So I guess I'm really not all that libertarian after all? I am ok with moderate restrictions on freedom if it can be truly justified to prevent harming others. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins etc.

These labels have always confused me. Maybe I'm a communist

 

[ksen]

welcome aboard! :wave:

 

[rousseau]

There was a political spectrum poll done on FRDB years back that showed most of us lean towards left-libertarianism. I think left vs right libertarianism is the distinction you're looking for.

In general you support people being free, but you also want to intelligently offer them a secure life.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yep. the position would be libertarian with a hypocritical stance on health care.

Ok, so what is the more appropriate label for me politically? Democratic Socialist as RavenSky suggested?

I'm also for gun restriction laws and though I am for freedom to go nude or wear whatever you want, I could be convinced towards some moderate and reasonable restrictions on nudity for sanitary reasons and moderate and reasonable restrictions on face coverings for security reasons. So I guess I'm really not all that libertarian after all? I am ok with moderate restrictions on freedom if it can be truly justified to prevent harming others. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins etc.

These labels have always confused me. Maybe I'm a communist

Your positions so far sound more liberal and progressive than libertarian to me. But there are a few areas that you have not expounded upon that could change the equation.

How do you feel about government regulation of business?
How do you feel about government regulation of economic markets?
How do you feel about taxation, and what do you think tax revenue should be spent on?
Finally, how important do you think those issues are compared to the other positions you have already espoused?

 

[rousseau]

Socialist libertarian is an oxymoron.

Libertarianism is about keeping government out of one's life as much as is feasible.

Socialism requires major intrusion by government into one's life.


The "socialist libertarian" position seems to be basically about leaving me alone but taking from others to provide me with as much as possible of the necessities of life.

Define libertarian. From dictionary.com:

- libertarian - a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct
- liberty - freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control
- arbitrary - subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion

And so by definition a libertarian isn't against government control, a libertarian is against arbitrary government control. At that point you need to figure out what constitutes 'arbitrary' government control, but most sane libertarians don't believe we should reduce government as far as possible, and would argue in favour of many socialist tenets.

libertarian - a person who maintains the doctrine of free will

Then there's this. People who take from the term that they should be as free as possible, which is very inclusive of having strong safety nets.

 

[dismal]

Socialist libertarian is an oxymoron.

Libertarianism is about keeping government out of one's life as much as is feasible.

Socialism requires major intrusion by government into one's life.


The "socialist libertarian" position seems to be basically about leaving me alone but taking from others to provide me with as much as possible of the necessities of life.

Define libertarian. From dictionary.com:

- libertarian - a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct
- liberty - freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control
- arbitrary - subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion

And so by definition a libertarian isn't against government control, a libertarian is against arbitrary government control. At that point you need to figure out what constitutes 'arbitrary' government control, but most sane libertarians don't believe we should reduce government as far as possible, and would argue in favour of many socialist tenets.

libertarian - a person who maintains the doctrine of free will

Then there's this. People who take from the term that they should be as free as possible, which is very inclusive of having strong safety nets.

Generally libertarians are for a government that enforces libertarian principles -- subject to practical limitations and constraints. (There can be much debate over this last part.)

Among the bedrock libertarian principles that one would typically find is that government should constructively define and enforce private property rights, and that transfers of property should be mutually voluntary.

It's really quite hard for me to square this with socialism, if we stick to the traditional definition of socialism.

Then there's this. People who take from the term that they should be as free as possible, which is very inclusive of having strong safety nets.

If this is your definition of "freedom" then, no, libertarians don't think people should be as free as possible.

If there is no direct harm to others libertarians think you should be very free to do things with your property and your body, but with other people's not free at all.

 

[funinspace]

Yep. the position would be libertarian with a hypocritical stance on health care.

Ok, so what is the more appropriate label for me politically? Democratic Socialist as RavenSky suggested?

I'm also for gun restriction laws and though I am for freedom to go nude or wear whatever you want, I could be convinced towards some moderate and reasonable restrictions on nudity for sanitary reasons and moderate and reasonable restrictions on face coverings for security reasons. So I guess I'm really not all that libertarian after all? I am ok with moderate restrictions on freedom if it can be truly justified to prevent harming others. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins etc.

These labels have always confused me. Maybe I'm a communist

Well the word "socialist" used to kind of have a fairly well understood meaning of thinking the govt. should own/control the major means of production/economy, not just a few sections. But to the US Repugs these days, just about anyone that isn't rightwing bat-shit-crazy is a socialist.

How about a progressive libertarian

FiS
Moderate green libertarian

 

[rousseau]

Define libertarian. From dictionary.com:

- libertarian - a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct
- liberty - freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control
- arbitrary - subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion

And so by definition a libertarian isn't against government control, a libertarian is against arbitrary government control. At that point you need to figure out what constitutes 'arbitrary' government control, but most sane libertarians don't believe we should reduce government as far as possible, and would argue in favour of many socialist tenets.

libertarian - a person who maintains the doctrine of free will

Then there's this. People who take from the term that they should be as free as possible, which is very inclusive of having strong safety nets.

Generally libertarians are for a government that enforces libertarian principles -- subject to practical limitations and constraints. (There can be much debate over this last part.)

Among the bedrock libertarian principles that one would typically find is that government should constructively define and enforce private property rights, and that transfers of property should be mutually voluntary.

It's really quite hard for me to square this with socialism, if we stick to the traditional definition of socialism.

Then there's this. People who take from the term that they should be as free as possible, which is very inclusive of having strong safety nets.

If this is your definition of "freedom" then, no, libertarians don't think people should be as free as possible.

If there is no direct harm to others libertarians think you should be very free to do things with your property and your body, but with other people's not free at all.

The point I was getting at is that not only is there no standard definition of libertarianism, but if you go strictly by the definition of the word the two terms aren't a contradiction.

You could say something similar about almost any political stance. For instance, I'd say the U.S. brand of conservatism can only be defined as the U.S. brand of conservatism, and is not necessarily typical of what it means to be conservative, or what conservative *should* mean.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is "freedom to" and "Freedom from"

Most people are all for "freedom to," freedom to do what you want (within reason), say what you want, go where you want, believe what you want.

It is the "freedom from" part that people fight about.

Freedom from starvation, homelessness, ignorance, prejudice, poverty, fear, hatred mean a sacrifice on the part of both self and others.

Do you have the right to demand or even ask for one person to sacrifice for another? If you do, how much of a sacrifice and what kind?

But can you really be "free to" until you are "free from?"

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If God Is Good, and He Has to Be, Then Everybody Is in Their Right Place, Even Those Born Rich

I have been trying for a while now to identify myself on the political spectrum. I am a libertarian in the sense that I believe in social freedom. I believe people should be allowed to go naked in the streets or wear burqas. I believe prostitution and most drugs should be legalized. I support homosexual marriage. I support euthanasia. But I am also a socialist. I support universal health care and universal basic income.

But when I hear most libertarians speak they are against socialism, and when I hear most socialists speak they say "libertarian" like it is a dirty word. So is Socialist Liberatrian a thing, or is there another common label that fits me better?

Perhaps anti-Fundamentalist, since they are not only Puritanical but believe that being rich is a sign of God's favor and that the poor are the favorites of Satan. Their worship of the rich and the l%'s tyrannical Constitution is the real reason that sect has so much funded influence, pun unintentional but correct anyway.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Islime Is a Virus

The problem is that implementing universal anything (which is impossible) requires a very strong centralized government. As governments become powerful, they generally start trying to force their social agenda.

I see your point, but I don't think that HAS to happen. I think Canada has done pretty well on that front. We have universal health care, but not universal basic income. We have a pretty free society. Women can go topless in Ontario in public if they want, or they can wear burqas. Prostitution was recently made illegal (which I fought against) but marijuana laws are loosening up (which I also fought for). There is currently an election issue of whether or not women should be allowed to wear Islamic face coverings while taking the oath of citizenship, and all but one party is against a ban on it. I think there is hope here that we could become what I envision. I also agree with RavenSky that Bernie Sanders seems to be pushing for the same in the US.

"Democratic Socialist" is Bernie's term? Maybe that is what I am.

This Zero Intolerance is why if Mossadegh hadn't been deposed, Iran would soon have become theocratic jihadist anyway. He would have let it grow because of a simple-minded definition of democracy, then that predatory bandits' cult would have crushed his idealistic governmental fantasy.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Aynal Retentives--Yes, They Start Out as Slimey Bootlicking Brownnoses. Young Greenspan Was.

I have been trying for a while now to identify myself on the political spectrum. I am a libertarian in the sense that I believe in social freedom. I believe people should be allowed to go naked in the streets or wear burqas. I believe prostitution and most drugs should be legalized. I support homosexual marriage. I support euthanasia. But I am also a socialist. I support universal health care and universal basic income.

But when I hear most libertarians speak they are against socialism, and when I hear most socialists speak they say "libertarian" like it is a dirty word. So is Socialist Liberatrian a thing, or is there another common label that fits me better?

The reason people on the left, so called socialists, criticize "Libertarianism", not "libertarianism", is because capital "L" Libertarianism in the US is an outgrowth from people like Ayn Rand and it is really absolute subjugation to capitalist markets, which is called liberty.

There is nothing free about modern capitalist markets or any potential capitalist markets.

A capitalist market by it's nature gives you more power the more wealth you accumulate. A few with far greater power than the majority is freedom for them and subjugation for everyone else.

Degenerate aristocratic capitalism is like the doomed way the NBA would be if the championship team got the #1 Draft Pick. I wonder why these fanatics of selfishness aren't up in arms about the fact that the worst team gets the #1 Pick.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Generally libertarians are for a government that enforces libertarian principles -- subject to practical limitations and constraints. (There can be much debate over this last part.)

Among the bedrock libertarian principles that one would typically find is that government should constructively define and enforce private property rights, and that transfers of property should be mutually voluntary.

It's really quite hard for me to square this with socialism, if we stick to the traditional definition of socialism.

Then there's this. People who take from the term that they should be as free as possible, which is very inclusive of having strong safety nets.

If this is your definition of "freedom" then, no, libertarians don't think people should be as free as possible.

If there is no direct harm to others libertarians think you should be very free to do things with your property and your body, but with other people's not free at all.

The point I was getting at is that not only is there no standard definition of libertarianism, but if you go strictly by the definition of the word the two terms aren't a contradiction.

You could say something similar about almost any political stance. For instance, I'd say the U.S. brand of conservatism can only be defined as the U.S. brand of conservatism, and is not necessarily typical of what it means to be conservative, or what conservative *should* mean.

Conservative is a term used to describe a party in the us, it doesn't mean conservative in terms of conserving things as they are. When does something become mainstream that it's liberal to want to change them? Privatizing SS for example would be a liberal position in terms of making a change, while keeping SS the way it is would be conservative.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There is "freedom to" and "Freedom from"

Most people are all for "freedom to," freedom to do what you want (within reason), say what you want, go where you want, believe what you want.

It is the "freedom from" part that people fight about.

Freedom from starvation, homelessness, ignorance, prejudice, poverty, fear, hatred mean a sacrifice on the part of both self and others.

Do you have the right to demand or even ask for one person to sacrifice for another? If you do, how much of a sacrifice and what kind?

But can you really be "free to" until you are "free from?"

But then you get into competing freedoms, there is no freedom of speech from a person if they can't say something racist for example. And getting to the freedom of wants, you make a line of what you believe. What does freedom from starvation mean. Does it mean you get any available food you want in the world? Can you live in any house in the world?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is "freedom to" and "Freedom from"

Most people are all for "freedom to," freedom to do what you want (within reason), say what you want, go where you want, believe what you want.

It is the "freedom from" part that people fight about.

Freedom from starvation, homelessness, ignorance, prejudice, poverty, fear, hatred mean a sacrifice on the part of both self and others.

Do you have the right to demand or even ask for one person to sacrifice for another? If you do, how much of a sacrifice and what kind?

But can you really be "free to" until you are "free from?"

Above is what I said, below is what coloradoatheist said

But then you get into competing freedoms, there is no freedom of speech from a person if they can't say something racist for example. And getting to the freedom of wants, you make a line of what you believe. What does freedom from starvation mean. Does it mean you get any available food you want in the world? Can you live in any house in the world?

The two quotes are not talking about the same things.

Thank you for your attention.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The difference of freedoms you are describing are different, where to get one you have to take away freedom from sone else, and it's the boundaries of where that happens is in question. For freedom of speech nobody's right gets taken away for you having your speech, but if other people would be required to pay so you can speak (buy you a megaphone, buy you TV commercials, etc) then that's a conflict of rights. The same way with the ones you listed. Some of the freedoms taken away are okay with people, but some become questionable. Example, is someone free to mooch.

 

[abaddon]

Jolly Penguin,

This test was mentioned in the thread: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

It's worth the 5 minutes to take it, as the questions can help you survey your own viewpoints on political and economic issues, and the brief explanation of terms at the end help clarify what label belongs with what sorts of choices that different sorts of personality might make (some historic personages are given for examples and compared, very briefly).

 

[Jayjay]

I have been trying for a while now to identify myself on the political spectrum. I am a libertarian in the sense that I believe in social freedom. I believe people should be allowed to go naked in the streets or wear burqas. I believe prostitution and most drugs should be legalized. I support homosexual marriage. I support euthanasia. But I am also a socialist. I support universal health care and universal basic income.

But when I hear most libertarians speak they are against socialism, and when I hear most socialists speak they say "libertarian" like it is a dirty word. So is Socialist Liberatrian a thing, or is there another common label that fits me better?

Universal basic income isn't a socialist idea, in my view. On the contrary, over here the biggest opposition to the notion comes from social-democratic party and their ilk.